Re: Modula-2, Modula-3, C or C++

Article View: comp.lang.modula2

Article #2500

#2500

From: Rodney M. Bates
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 15:04

17 lines
1040 bytes

aburke@ibm.com writes:

> A few years ago a study
> within IBM showed that the defect-insertion rate for C was more 
> than four times that experienced with Modula-2. 

Is this study available?  I have known this is true for years,
but can never find the data.  There is also a paper titled
"Modula-2 is three times less error-prone than C", or something
similar.  I haven't been able to find it either.

I really want this kind of documented results.  I'm sure there
are others who want it too.  Those who have it/know where it is,
please disclose it to the rest of us.

Rodney Bates
bates@salsv6.boeing.com

Technical Details

Message-ID: <DEyCJK.KDy@bcsaic.boeing.com>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!in1.uu.net!bcstec!bcsaic!rodney

References: <438nkr$bd@classic.eng.octel.com> <4395o4$3mv2@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2,comp.lang.modula3,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!in1.uu.net!bcstec!bcsaic!rodney
From: rodney@bcsaic.boeing.com (Rodney M. Bates)
Subject: Re: Modula-2, Modula-3, C or C++
Message-ID: <DEyCJK.KDy@bcsaic.boeing.com>
Organization: Boeing Computer Services
References: <438nkr$bd@classic.eng.octel.com> <4395o4$3mv2@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 15:04:32 GMT

Reply to Parent Message